Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: only 'released' documents are retrievable and only 'public items' are returned, which tells the agent about access scope. It does not say what happens when the ID is missing or unpublished.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, zero filler. Every clause earns its place by narrowing scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete, and the description even sketches the return shape (metadata plus public items) despite no output schema. The only gap is behavior on missing or non-released IDs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('IARCCUM document ID', integer, minimum 1), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or lookup semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (Return) plus resource (structured metadata and public items of one IARCCUM document), with scope words 'one' and 'released' that distinguish it from the plural search siblings. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of the 5 benchmark.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the fetch-by-ID tool and search_documents/find_documents_by_protocol are the lookup tools, but neither the condition nor the alternatives are stated. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.